3 Years to Life in Prison in Utah "Neighborhood Watch" Shooting Case

[alohachris]

Link to article: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12258402

Bluffdale man who shot neighbor gets 3 years to life in prison
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:56pm
WEST JORDAN -- A Bluffdale man found guilty of attempted murder will spend three years to life in prison. In an unexpected twist, serious allegations were raised against the victim just after the sentencing.

Reginald Campos, who shot and paralyzed his neighbor, David Serbeck, heard the judge hand down his sentence in a West Jordan courtroom Thursday morning. In addition to the attempted murder term, Campos was sentenced to zero to five years on an aggravated assault charge...

The judge said Campos' self-defense claim was "pure crap." He said what Campos did was a stupid, careless act that could have been avoided if Campos had called the police.

This story very clearly illustrates why responsible firearm ownership is ninety percent exercising good thinking & dispassionate judgement.

Here's a link to some THR discussion & backstory as the case developed: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=535769

 

[Sam1911]

I'm moving this to S&T as I think it can provide a lot of food for thought, but will probably benefit from the more structured atmosphere in here.

 

[uspJ]

I hate it for the guy. He was trying to protect his daughter but went about it entirely the wrong way. If he had called the police and reported about his daughter being harrassed and followed he could still be home with her. If he felt he had to leave the house to find the guy he would have been better off getting the plate number and calling the police.

You can't go confront someone with a gun and then claim self defense.

 

[mljdeckard]

Both of these guys went looking for trouble and both of them found it. It is a perfect example of how NOT to handle a bad situation. The shooter did NOT have a carry permit. I wonder if ha had gone to the class, would he have had a better understanding of when he is and is not allowed to use deadly force?

I honestly think he will be out in less than five years.

 

[bikerdoc]

He did go about it the wrong way.

He defaulted to gun. A little thinking would have given a lot of layers to go to before he needed a gun.

Thinking is the first weapon.

You can't go confront someone with a gun and then claim self defense.

Correct. There is a bit of case law in Justifiable cases that states" unprovoked by you"

 

[Tim Burke]

3 years to life? That's a wide range.

 

[alohachris]

A very good point, MLJDeckard. If he had taken the CFP course and been clear about UT self-defence law, he may have used that knowledge and be home with his family right now.

I hope both of them have learned from this. 3-5 years seems to me a reasonable sentence in this case. Life is absurd and would be unjust. I wonder about the accusations & investigation against the 'victim'. If they prove to be fact, one wonders if this 'sheepdog' was out watching for something other than vandalism.

 

[Cearbhall]

""I wonder about the accusations & investigation against the 'victim'. If they prove to be fact, one wonders if this 'sheepdog' was out watching for something other than vandalism.""

Me too. The guy (allegedly) was following teenage girls around, with an iffy excuse. The father was instinctive in protecting his daughter and confronted the guy, as I myself would have. I hope he gets a retrial.

 

[Six]

I hope not.

First, he had no idea of the character of the victim at the time of the incident.

Secondly, let's not forget what the source of the information about the victim was - the assailants defense lawyer trying to win sympathy for their client.

Further. even if the victim was guilty of all claims, and Mr. Campos was certain of it, he still had no right to track him down and confront him.

Finally, all that aside:
Venturing out to play police officer is always a poor strategy, unless you in fact are one.

 

[Kleanbore]

The father was instinctive in protecting his daughter and confronted the guy, as I myself would have.

OOPS! Apparent failure to learn, here.

The father went looking for the guy, armed with a gun, and found him in an SUV. He then shot the guy.

Regardless of why he went looking, it is very doubtful that he would have gotten a self-defense instruction anywhere in the country.

In fact, had the now convicted defendant been the one who was shot, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that the other guy would have prevailed in a defense of justification.

 

[uspJ]

In fact, had the now convicted defendant been the one who was shot, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that the other guy would have prevailed in a defense of justification.

I read in the article that Campos shot the other guy after he had racked the slide on his weapon. If Campos had allready had his gun exposed and coming toward him the victim would have been pretty much in the clear as far as the shooting goes.

I know the vicitm had another guy riding with him that night, I wonder how much his account of what happened had to play in this case?

 

[Jim K]

I don't know enough about the case to comment except to say that it should be noted by those who say things like "I'll shoot the SOB and claim it was self defense and I'll get away with it."

Jim

 

[DCR]

Wasn't there really some question as to who was the true assailant in the case, which is what was referred to in the OP's post " In an unexpected twist, serious allegations were raised against the victim just after the sentencing."

I agree that the convicted man was a hothead who should have used a phone and not a gun, but the "victim," as well as his buddy in the vehicle, to my recollection, were a couple of self-appointed neighborhood heroes (neighborhood watch and homeowner association busybodies, no?) who armed themselves and "patrolled," thinking they were the be-all and end-all of the 'hood, who probably deserved a slap-down to cool their jets, but not what they got in the end.

 

[Kleanbore]

Wasn't there really some question as to who was the true assailant in the case,....

The now convicted defendant went looking for the victim with a gun. No, one cannot claim self-defense under such a circumstance. The use of deadly force cannot be justified and is a criminal act.

.... the "victim," as well as his buddy in the vehicle, to my recollection, were a couple of self-appointed neighborhood heroes (neighborhood watch and homeowner association busybodies, no?) who armed themselves and "patrolled," thinking they were the be-all and end-all of the 'hood, who probably deserved a slap-down to cool their jets, but not what they got in the end.

Doesn't matter who they were. If someone arms himself, seeks and confronts someone, and employs deadly force unlawfully, it doesn't really matter whether the victim is an embezzler, a pimp, a bad singer, an excellent chef, or a clergyman.

If a "slap-down" had been in order, the way to effect that would have been through due process.

There are a small number of people in our society who seem to think they can take the law into their own hands to apprehend someone believed to have done wrong, or to right that wrong. By virtue of having that opinion it is clear that they do not understand the very laws that they would choose to try to enforce.

This incident would seem to illustrate that pretty well.

For those who are not sworn officers and who do not want to make themselves conversant on such things, and also for those might would like to find ways to rationalize such actions through their own lay interpretation of the law, here are a few very, very simple things to remember:

• "I am not a policeman."
• "My firearm is to be used as a last resort, and only to protect myself or loved ones or friends when there is no other way."
• "I will always avoid confrontations rather than seek them."
• "I will shoot for defense, and not for justice."

Thanks to Cosmoline for the last one.

 

[DCR]

All good points, Kleanbore. However, as I recall, the "victim" was out "patrolling" the 'hood with his buddy and had accosted the convicted defendant's daughter and made her fear for her safety. Seems the "patrollers" were armed with numbers, a vehicle, and one or both had, at least reportedly, been carrying as well. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I do not dispute that the convicted deserves being punished, but the so-called "victim" and his buddy were every bit as much in the wrong in "patrolling" and wrongfully accosting the shooter's daughter. As such, the purported "victim" and his buddy, in my mind, deserved a "slap down," but, as you correctly put it, through the use of due process.

Problem is, due process is broken, even in the delightful gun-friendly haven of Utah, especially for the poor and religious minorities living in that part of the city, based on substantial reports and complaints to the PD, ACLU, and other rights-watch groups. So, in many respects, I don't blame the minority defendant for going looking for his daughters' assailants, particularly with the slow response time for police in that area.

Additionally, I don't think that many people on this board would be willing to give anyone "due process" after their daughter had been accosted...I'd submit that most board members would leave the "high road" and give their daughters' assailants just as much "due process" as they had given our daughters. Accordingly, the plight of the defendant resonates with more people than that of the "victim."

My point was not to justify or glorify vigilantism, but to illustrate that there's a whole lot more to the story than what was in the original post in this thread, and although the now-convicted was in the wrong to do what he did, the "victim" was nowhere near squeaky clean.

Bottom line: both sides took the law into their own hands; now one - the defendant - is going to prison, and the not-so-innocent-"victim" is paralyzed. Both were wrong, IMHO.

 

[uspJ]

Additionally, I don't think that many people on this board would be willing to give anyone "due process" after their daughter had been accosted...I'd submit that most board members would leave the "high road" and give their daughters' assailants just as much "due process" as they gave my girl. Accordingly, the plight of the defendant resonates with more people than that of the "victim."

I agree 100%. If someone was to accost a loved one the first thing to run through my mind would be to "handle the problem" and show them how much I don't like it when they treat my loved ones in that manner. But....cooler heads always prevail and usually don't put themselves in bad situations. The High Road and especially S&T is an exellent place to debate and talk about options that don't always involve grabbing our guns.

My point was not to justify or glorify vigilantism, but to illustrate that there's a whole lot more to the story than what was in the original post in this thread, and although the now-convicted was in the wrong to do what he did, the "victim" was nowhere near squeaky clean.

Bottom line: both sides took the law into their own hands; now one - the defendant - is going to prison, and the not-so-innocent-"victim" is paralyzed. Both were wrong, IMHO.

Again I agree. Both parties chose to take matters in their own hands and both parties handled those matters in a very bad way. Now both parties involved and their families have one hell of a burden to deal with. On the victims side they have to deal with a paralyzed love one, medical costs, emotional turmoil etc. On the defendents side they have the loss of their loved one while incarcerated, the worry of not knowing while he's there, and other financial and emotional burdens. That is a lot of grief for something that could have been handled so differently and had a much more positive outcome.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Was it ever made public, whether the teenage girls actually committed the vandalism and thefts that triggered the strange chain of events? Or was that a red herring?

I wonder if the girls embellished the story they told the father.

As a general S&T comment, remember that children sometimes lie (for attention, spite, fun, profit, and practice) before you grab your gun and charge off to protect them. Especially with peer pressure, and especially if they are concealing trouble. [Not saying that happened in this particular case, I don't know.]

 

[shockwave]

The problematic item as I recall concerned the victim, Serbeck. In more than one account as the trial pressed forward, it was asserted that Serbeck placed his gun on the ground and shoved it away, whereupon Campos shot him.

Given that Serbeck is now in a wheelchair for life, 3-to-life seems a bit mild. With time off for good behavior, Campos could be out in around a year or so. Serbeck will be imprisoned in his chair the rest of his life, barring some miracle in medicine, as a result of attempted murder. So Campos definitely got a light sentence.

Let's go back to Serbeck. In theory, any resident in a community is legally able to form a "neighborhood watch." There is nothing untoward or objectionable about that. The section being patrolled by Serbeck (which is separate from Campos's area), was experiencing a rash of robberies. Any concerned citizen is within his or her rights to establish a watch. That's not "playing cop" or anything of the sort.

In a city I lived in a while back, there was an exceedingly violent and brutal serial rapist on the loose and many such ad-hoc watch patrols were set up in response. This was really no different, in principle.

But let's underscore the protocol: Neighborhood watch patrols should usually be 2 or more people. They should wear something designating their role. The neighborhood to be patrolled should be informed in advance, so they understand what these people walking around are doing. The watch patrol should be armed with flashlights. Their primary function is to harden the neighborhood by presenting a visible deterrent to bad actors.

Serbeck and his partner pretty much violated all principles of sound patrolling. And accosting the teenagers was totally uncalled for - and that was "playing cop." Which they had no right to do. Magnetic letters are cheap and "neighborhood watch" could have been affixed prominently to the vehicle (although in an earlier post on this topic I have noted that neighborhood patrols are most effective as foot patrols or, maybe, on bicycles). Riding around in a car is a lousy way to patrol.

Just as many of us carry concealed to provide for our own defense, I support citizens who actively try to harden their neighborhoods against crime. That's being proactive, civic-minded, and fully engaged. But there's a smart way to do it and the Campos-Serbeck incident is the "how-not-to" example.

 

[DCR]

Very insightful comments about this tragic incident; I really like reading everyone's thoughts. Shockwave is right, this is a great "how not to" example we can all learn from.

 

[Kleanbore]

Additionally, I don't think that many people on this board would be willing to give anyone "due process" after their daughter had been accosted...I'd submit that most board members would leave the "high road" and give their daughters' assailants just as much "due process" as they had given our daughters.

Your belief is that many of the people on this board are potential felons? That's worrisome.

 

[icebones]

Indeed, think before you act, think again before you resort to any violence, and think really hard before you put your finger on the trigger. In some cases you mind will get you alot farther than a weapon.

 

[ants]

Perhaps to further Kleanbore's thoughts...

Keanbore: There are a small number of people in our society who seem to think they can take the law into their own hands to apprehend someone believed to have done wrong, or to right that wrong.

Sometimes it would seem that these small number of people get their continuing education from TV and movies. Vigilante justice is a common theme in action entertainment.

Upon leaving school (high school, college, trade school, whatever) folks rarely pursue continuing education in a formal setting, but rely on newspapers, magazines, and TV news broadcasts. It is a short jump to add TV drama and movies to those media. When Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood movies become your self-defense training scenarios, you are bound to make big mistakes in real life.

 

[mljdeckard]

No. Not even close. Like I said at the beginning, both acted stupidly, but what the victim did wasn't even 'accosting'. It was questioning. Where in the law does it say; "If a stranger in a truck questions your daughter on the street, pretending to be a cop, you are legally allowed to run out with your gun, find him in his truck, and shoot him."?

Kleanbore has daid it repeatedly, but some people don't seem to be listening. The only justification for self-defense homicide is to be able to tell the prosecutor and the jury "I HAD NO OTHER CHOICE." If you run and look for someone, regardless of who did what after that, ALL of your actions are in question.

It's also a question of what you know matters less than what you can prove. It was Campos' word against two witnesses, as to who did what in what order. He says they racked the slide. They say he dropped the gun. Maybe he racked the slide and THEN dropped the gun. DOESN'T MATTER since Campos was the aggressor here.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Secondly, let's not forget what the source of the information about the victim was - the assailants defense lawyer trying to win sympathy for their client.

er no it came from a neighbor of sorbeck who came forward with allegations of abuse


i think that i learned something here and hope i remember it if the issue arises.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Lets not forget the sentence for death is taken very serious and many locations are not for it, human life being very precious item...

I have a feeling the shooter had been watching to many old cowboy reruns of the 60s and 70s...

"Gunsmoke" kills um off daily, waving firearms around and shooting was not a big deal, unless you tried to shoot Matt Dillion, then it was a death sentence, right then and there...

I have a feeling the judge was correct to be honest...